The newest trend in Airline Fees...Al Gore dream come true!

[30West]

He needs your money so he can continue to hunt for ManBearPig!

 

[HoursHore]

I'll know the UN is serious about combating pollution when all the proposals they make apply to China, and not just the US.

That place is Filthy.

 

[jayme]

Which proposals are targeted at only the US?

 

[jayme]

There is far more CO2 given off naturally than any humans' produce, combined.But people like Gore don't really want to talk about that. Humans make up less than 5 percent of ALL carbon dioxide output. The majority of it comes from things like volcanos. What does Mr. Gore purposed to do about this huge source. It's BS.

Absolute garbage, every word.

Man emits over 25 BILLION tons of CO2 every year. Volcanoes emit about 1/2 of 1% of that (130 million tons) according to the usgs.

 

[jetflyer]

.



I think we need Jetflyer to visit this thread and preach about PEAK OIL........




.

Ladies and Gentlemen I hope you're seated for today's sermon.

Peak Oil was last year in August at 85.1 million barrels per day.

The U.S. uses 1/4 of the world's oil.

Only 2/3 of the oil the U.S. uses is for transportation.

Saudi Arabia passed peak in December 2005. Their production is down from 9.5mbd to 8.3 and keeps declining linearly month after month.

Oil production for Planet Earth is declining and global crude, gasoline, heating oil, etc. inventories are being drawn down by over 1 million barrels a day currently.

The Cheap Petroleum Party will soon be over.

Global warming won't matter as long as the remaining coal is used through carbon sequestration tecnologies.

Go take that vacation. Go drive across the country. Enjoy the low gasoline prices now.

Doug, I know you were kidding but I didn't want to disappoint

Cya,
Jet

 

[HoursHore]

The whole damn Kyoto treaty. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_treaty



The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005 following ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004. As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries).[7][8] Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite their relatively large populations.

People's Republic of China

The People's Republic of China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. China endorses this because of the advantage it would get within the new restrictions. Because China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low emissions per capita, it claims it should therefore in both the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.[31] China is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and as of first-half 2007, is expected to become the largest by second-half 2007.[3] In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from China were about 54% of the USA emissions [4]. China is now building on average a coal-fired power plant every week and plans to continue doing so for years [5][6]. Some predictions (in 2006) are that China will emit more greenhouse gas than the USA in 2 or 3 years [7] [8].

European Union

 

[wrxpilot]

How's that hole in the ozone layer doing?

It must be the size of a small planet by now.

While that has nothing to do with the current topic, here's an answer for you:
http://www.stevenspublishing.com/St...a8b12af89cd8b5f2862572cd005347e9?opendocument

I apologize for eliminating yet another topic from the fear mongering folks.

 

[wrxpilot]

Absolute garbage, every word.

Man emits over 25 BILLION tons of CO2 every year. Volcanoes emit about 1/2 of 1% of that (130 million tons) according to the usgs.

Enter the morons. I'm outta this thread.

 

[Cobra]

Man made global warming is a scam to remove your money from your wallet and to increase control over you while destroying the US economy.

I hear they are having a bulk rate special over at HD for pool sand. You can have on hand a fresh supply for burying that coconut of yours.

How much did Dick (5 x deferments) Cheney pay you to say that?

 

[atafan]

How much did Dick (5 x deferments) Cheney pay you to say that?

What does Cheney have to do with Global Warming?

Open your mind and quit being a hand puppet.

 

[Lebowski]

This is from the NOAA web site:

What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?

The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).

Is the climate warming?

Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.

Read it all for yourself at:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

 

[Phaedrus]

...and your going to listen to airline pilots opinions on global warming?
It's pretty much unanimous among people much more qualified than any of us that global warming is a problem.

Brilliant deductive reasoning! Can you please enlighten me as to just how you came to this conlusion DanRoman? Clearly your mental acuity is fantastic since I never said I consult pilots on this forum to determine my views on ecological matters. It must be something more, perhaps tone or a slip of the keyboard that allowed you to deduce my source of information. Please let me in on it!

 

[STL717]

Beware the Eco-Industrial Complex

Beware the Eco-Industrial Complex
Sunday , January 28, 2007

By Steven Milloy

President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned Americans in 1961 against the growing and unwarranted influence on our government of a “military-industrial complex.” The 2007 version of this concern should focus on the looming eco-industrial complex.

Just this week the so-called U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) announced its presence and called for “the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

USCAP members include: Alcoa, BP America , Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont, Environmental Defense, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, World Resources Institute.

USCAP is obviously a politically and economically formidable group that plans to press Congress and the Bush administration hard for global warming regulation, including the ever-dubious cap-and-trade of greenhouse gas emissions.

At face value, USCAP comes off as a mutually beneficial partnership between big business and environmental groups. If successful, the environmentalists get the economy-controlling global warming regulation they have been working toward since the late-1980s. The companies plan to profit (at least in the short term) from either the cap-and-trade provisions or from selling high-priced, politically-favored (if not mandated) so-called “green” technology to the rest of us -- whether we need it or not and regardless of whether it produces any environmental or societal benefits.

These, of course, are reasons enough to be concerned about USCAP -- but the sub-surface view of what USCAP represents is even more ominous.

As described in a 2004 book entitled, “Biz-War and the Out-of-Power Elite: The Progressive-Left Attack on the Corporation,” left-leaning environmental groups, labor groups and human rights groups have been quietly working to harness (hijack?) the influence, power and resources of large publicly-owned corporations in order to implement the Left’s social and political agenda.

Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, it has been increasingly difficult for the Left to advance its social agenda through the public political process. This has certainly been true with respect to environmental issues, in general, and global warming, in particular.

Environmentalists, for example, tried and failed to impose the Kyoto Protocol on the U.S. --despite the active support of the Green-friendly Clinton administration. Other Kyoto-like legislation -- such as the so-called McCain-Lieberman bill – also failed the political test.

But just as the political prospects for global warming regulation seemed to be fading, the environmentalists’ long-standing efforts to capture the corporation began to gain traction, thanks to successful pressure campaigns against the CEOs of financial service companies.

The Rainforest Action Network’s campaign against Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill resulted in the bank agreeing to give environmentalists a say in the bank lending process. The capitulation of Citigroup, America’s largest bank, was quickly followed by similar surrenders by the next largest U.S. banks, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

At about the same time, the General Electric Company apparently made peace with environmentalists over the company’s long-standing headache involving the clean-up of PCB sediments spilled decades ago in the Hudson River. Coincidentally (or not), at about the same time that GE’s PCB problem went away, the company very publicly teamed up with environmental activists in May 2005 to champion global warming regulation.

Through a combination of coaxing and coercion, the Greens have now successfully insinuated themselves into corporate boardrooms to the point where they’ve gained critical mass in the form of USCAP.

The significance of the Greens’ capture of big business is readily apparent.

America is on the verge of committing economic and political suicide by enacting global warming regulation. What’s the reason? Al Gore’s hyped movie notwithstanding, there is no new or compelling science to support the notion that humans are harming global climate or that humans can control climate to any discernible extent.

What’s changed is the new pressure from big business for global warming regulation. This pressure even forced President Bush to acknowledge, however briefly, the problem of global warming in this week’s State of the Union address.

And this pressure is only likely to increase. Perceiving that the global warming regulation train is moving, businesses naturally will seek to craft the process to their advantage. General Motors and Ford, for example, have fought against mandatory global warming regulation in the past. But their businesses are being crushed by retiree health care costs. It’s possible that the companies might support global warming regulation in exchange for some form of legislative relief from their health care burdens.

Can both the Greens and business get what they want? Is this a win-win? Are there any losers? It’s possible that businesses may benefit in the short-term. But in the longer-term, only the Greens will win. Any global warming regulation implemented today will most likely only become more stringent tomorrow. If big business helps the Greens start the global warming regulation boulder rolling down the hill, it is only a matter of time before it gets out-of-control and turns into a crushing burden.

Moreover, remember that the Greens’ goal is to capture the corporation as a means to implement their social agenda, which goes far beyond the distraction of global warming to an unpalatable political vision that most of us would regard as socialistic.

In that case, businesses won’t be the only losers.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

 

[jayme]

Do you always believe in conspiracy theories, or just this one?

Do you trust NOAA when it comes to weather? How about NASA when it comes to studying the atmosphere? It's their satellites, after all that are tracking the changes in the earth's atmosphere.

How about the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)?

Guess what all of their official stance is on global warming?

 

[Lebowski]

This is from the NASA website:

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

Read it all for yourself at:

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html